The “new” SSPX deceptively tries to change the principles of its priests and followers. In other words, it is brainwashing them. Bishop Fellay acknowledged this fact in euphemistic terms, when he said that the “new” SSPX is working to get its followers to adapt to the new conciliar “reality”.

Here are Bishop Fellay’s words: when he was asked in May 2016 if the SSPX [can] be confident of the support of SSPX churchgoers for reconciliation [with Rome], he stated:

It will be quite a work, and it will take time to be able to bring the faithful to realize this new face in the history of the Church, this new reality ....

There are two prongs to the “new” SSPX’s brainwashing its priests and followers, to bring them to accept the conciliar wolves as if they were shepherds:

1. Praise the “wolves” themselves, e.g., (continuing the pastoral analogy) tell the sheep how beautifully shiny and thick the wolves’ fur coats are; and

2. Minimize the known evils of the “wolves”, e.g., (continuing the analogy) tell the sheep how few, dull, and small the wolves’ teeth are.

As shown briefly below, the “new” SSPX carefully follows both prongs of this brainwashing program.

1. Here are only a few of countless examples of the “new” SSPX praising the conciliar wolves themselves (analogous to telling the sheep how beautifully shiny and thick the wolves’ coats are):

   • The “new” SSPX falsely praises the personal holiness of dead conciliar popes.

   • Bishop Fellay falsely praises (former) Pope Benedict XVI as being wise and courageous.

   • The “new” SSPX falsely indicates that Pope Francis abides in the truth, and is preserved from error.

   • The “new” SSPX falsely says that Pope Francis appoints some good bishops.

   • The “new” SSPX falsely and repeatedly calls “bishop” Athanasius Schneider a good bishop who gives a clear defense of Catholic teaching. The truth is that Schneider is a doubtfully-valid “bishop” and is a conciliar revolutionary who teaches a less-virulent strain of the same conciliar poison. Id.

   • Bishop Fellay declared that he is “very happy” with a lot of what Pope Francis teaches.

   • Bishop Fellay declared that Pope Francis is on the side of the SSPX.

2. Here are just a few of countless examples of the “new” SSPX minimizing the known evils of the conciliar wolves, (analogous to telling the sheep how few, dull, and small the wolves’ teeth are).

   • Bishop Fellay falsely says that Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia is like a beautiful boat with a very small hole in it.¹

   • Bishop Fellay says the SSPX now accepts 95% of Vatican II.

   • The new SSPX falsely teaches that many Vatican II texts are traditional.

   • Bishop Fellay falsely minimizes Vatican II’s promotion of extremely broad religious liberty as follows: The Council is presenting a religious liberty which, in fact, is a very, very limited one; very limited!

   • The new SSPX falsely teaches that Vatican II does good, because Second Vatican Council ... illuminates—i.e. deepens and further makes explicit—some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church.²

On August 24, 2016, Bishop Fellay added to these poisonous teachings (above) by minimizing the evil of Vatican II in an additional way. He now says that Vatican II contains no direct heresy and few errors. Here are his words:

In Vatican II, there is no direct heresy. There are openings. Openings to the [sic] error. And some direct errors. Not so many direct errors.

Of course, the truth is that Vatican II is full of direct heresies.

Archbishop Lefebvre correctly taught that the whole Vatican II contradicts what the popes have taught for centuries. This plainly shows that Vatican II teaches heresy and that Archbishop Lefebvre does not mean only 5% of the council, but rather the whole council. Here are his words:

[W]e have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory.³

When a faithful Catholic examines any documents of Vatican II, especially the principal ones, he finds them continually contradicting the consistent and infallible teachings of the Catholic Church, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. For example, Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (for false religions) directly contradicts the infallible, consistent teaching of the Church.⁴

To take many other examples: the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium, averages about nineteen errors for every page!⁵ Thus, Bishop Fellay falsifies and minimizes by saying that there are Not so many direct errors.

Further, Vatican II’s very many errors contradict the Catholic Faith. Thus, Vatican II’s errors are heresy, since errors about the Faith are heresies (in contrast to errors on some other subject, such as geometry). Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this:

We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.

Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo (emphasis added).

Thus, when Bishop Fellay denies that Vatican II’s direct errors are many, he minimizes and falsifies the truth, since the council’s direct errors (as well as indirect errors) are very many.⁶

Further, Bishop Fellay minimizes the truth a second way, by denying that Vatican II contains direct heresies. As St. Thomas explains, direct errors about religion (as opposed to errors about geometry or some other subject) are direct heresies by definition. Vatican II has many direct errors and so has many direct heresies.

Even Bishop Fellay’s own minimizing is inconsistent with itself. He says (bracketed words added):

In Vatican II, there is no direct heresy. There are openings. Openings to the error. And [there are] some direct errors.

Those direct errors which Bishop Fellay admits, are direct heresies by definition.

In summary:

1. Bishop Fellay is wrong to deny that Vatican II has very many direct errors;

2. And therefore by definition, he is wrong to deny that Vatican II has very many direct heresies; and

3. He is inconsistent within his own statement, both admitting there are direct errors and denying there are direct heresies.

Conclusion

Bishop Fellay minimizes Vatican II in order to brainwash priests and people by falsely telling them that Vatican II’s “teeth” are small, dull and few. The truth is that Vatican II heresies are “teeth” which are large, sharp and many! Those “teeth” ruthlessly rip the “flesh” of the Catholic Faith out of the poor, abandoned sheep both in the conciliar church and, increasingly, in the “new” SSPX.

Let us pray for the weak, blind, SSPX sheep (priests and people) and the SSPX’s hireling leaders!